Is Pope Francis Guilty of Blasphemy and Departure from All Catholic Mariological Tradition in His Comments on the Possible Momentary Temptation of Mary at the Cross?

Pope Francis gave a homily
at Mass on the morning of 20 December 2013 at Casa Santa Marta in
Vatican City (Latin: Domus
Sanctæ Marthæ;
English: Saint Martha's House). This is his own residence. It was
devoted to the topic of silence before God, and acceptance of
mystery, with regard, specifically, to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

News.Va: the
“Official Vatican Network,” reported the pope's words on the same
day, via Vatican Radio (I'll cite only the pope's words in quotation
marks in the article):

The
Lord always took care of the mystery and hid the mystery. He did not
publicize the mystery. A mystery that publicizes itself is not
Christian; it is not the mystery of God: it is a fake mystery! And
this is what happened to Our Lady, when she received her Son: the
mystery of her virginal motherhood is hidden. It is hidden her whole
life! And she knew it. This shadow of God in our lives helps us to
discover our own mystery: the mystery of our encounter with the Lord,
our mystery of our life’s journey with the Lord.

Each
of us knows how mysteriously the Lord works in our hearts, in our
souls. . . . This cloud in us, in our lives is called silence: the
silence is exactly the cloud that covers the mystery of our
relationship with the Lord, of our holiness and of our sins. This
mystery that we cannot explain. But when there is no silence in our
lives, the mystery is lost, it goes away. Guarding the mystery with
silence! That is the cloud, that is the power of God for us, that is
the strength of the Holy Spirit.

. . . how many times she [Mary]
remained quiet and how many times she did not say that which she felt
in order to guard the mystery of her relationship with her Son, . . .

The
Gospel does not tell us anything: if she spoke a word or not… She
was silent, but in her heart, how many things told the Lord! ‘You,
that day, this and the other that we read, you had told me that he
would be great, you had told me that you would have given him the
throne of David, his forefather, that he would have reigned forever
and now I see him there!’ Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even
had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’ John Paul II would
say this, speaking about Our Lady in that moment. But she, with her
silence, hid the mystery that she did not understand and with this
silence allowed for this mystery to grow and blossom in hope.

.
. . Silence is that which guards the mystery . . . May the Lord give
all of us the grace to love the silence, to seek him and to have a
heart that is guarded by the cloud of silence.

Vatican
Insider
published basically the same, on the same day, and had a link at the
bottom to the Italian original language. The second-to-last last
paragraph in Italian is as follows:

Our Lady was human! And perhaps [s]he had the urge to say: 'Lies! I
was deceived! '

I
don't understand why it has “he” instead of “she”: but that
may lead into the almost inevitable translation questions, whenever
these controversies arise. The rendering above translated “desire”:
as does the Babylon online translator. The Zenit
version has the word “urge” as well.

A
person I discussed this with online, who speaks English, Spanish,
Italian, and Latin, observed about the Italian word voglia
(“desire” or “urge” above): that it's “very
nuanced and is best understood as something like 'fleeting thought,'
'pang' or 'twinge.' It implies an unbidden, sudden, spontaneous
thought or temptation.”

Interestingly,
the same homily, in excerpts on The
Holy See
/ Vatican website (also on the News.va page, likewise derived from
L'Osservatore
Romano),
does not
contain the portion: “Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had
the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’”

Both
of these versions, however, contain the sentence, the opening clause
of which is apparently, not a direct citation (my italics): “Likely,
Mary would have thought back to the angel’s words regarding her
Son: 'On that day you told me he would be great!
. . .'” This is important, because it makes it more clear that the
pope was merely speculating. But he's certainly doing that in any
case, if he is pondering what Mary may have been thinking, since we
have no recorded words from Scripture on that score.

Be
that as it may, I will assume that the reports of the most
controversial language are accurate, and proceed accordingly in my
analysis.

At
first glance, I was myself troubled and confused by these remarks, in
a way that I was not for any of the other “controversial” ones I
have seen. Apologists don't have all the “answers.” We have to
learn and sometimes struggle trying to understand certain things,
just like anyone else.

But
the question is, whether any such struggle to learn and more
accurately comprehend is within the outlook of a confident faith in
God: that He guides the Catholic Church in a unique way, or under a
paradigm of constant judging and criticizing of the pope when we may
not understand something; and, frankly, seemingly a lack of faith and
the obedient, “accepting” outlook that characterizes the devout,
observant Catholic in matters that involve his or her Church.

The
difference in the way I approached the “problem” compared to how
the pope's frequent detractors do, couldn't be more striking. Here
are my actual words, written on Facebook, the night before I studied
the issue and arrived at the analysis below:

There's
only one papal statement that I'm aware of, that puzzles me, that I
find difficult, but I am seeking to understand it by further inquiry,
and believe I will be able to do so to my satisfaction. It'll just
take a little extra work, is all. Why should we expect that we would
instantly understand everything a pope says, anyway? He's supposed
to stretch us and make us squirm a bit.

But
it's the underlying attitude of faith which is key: do we trust that
God knows what He is doing through His vicar or not? Or will we
question and doubt and criticize at every turn, which is the hallmark
of the radical Catholic reactionary that I've been critiquing for 17
years online?

There
are genuine questions within an overall attitude of faith and
obedience, and there is willful dissent. I think those who exercise
faith and diligence will come to understand most things if they seek
and study and learn. So there is a time element, too. “Seek and
ye shall find.” That takes time: sometimes a lot
of time. We converts are very familiar with that
process.

Confusion
can exist for a variety of reasons. People are, for example, highly
confused by many things in the Bible. Believe me, I know, as an
apologist who deals with such questions all the time. No one has been
more misunderstood than Jesus and Paul, yet that was God's will that
their words are in the Bible as is.

If
I thought the pope couldn't be defended I would say so and wouldn't
try to do it, but I think he can. I'm only confused by one remark and
I'll be studying further, myself, to better understand it.

The
leading theologians of Jesus' and Paul's time were almost universally
“concerned” about Jesus, too, and concluded that He was a
compulsive liar, deceiver, and demon-possessed. Almost all of Ven.
Pope Paul VI's theological advisers told him not to write Humanae
Vitae
[the famous encyclical reiterating the prohibition of contraception].
He did, anyway. The bishops and theologians massively dissented from
it after he wrote it. Sometimes popes can feel very much alone.

It's
one thing to say, “I don't understand x that the pope said . . .”
(I'm like that myself with regard to one statement that I've seen);
quite another to issue highly judgmental, condemnatory blanket
statements

It
took me 2-3 hours to “figure this out” to my own satisfaction,
and I say anyone could have done so with minimal searching skills and
a decent familiarity with Catholic theology and the Bible. But if I
don't understand something in theology (speaking generally), that's
not a crisis for me. I see that as the normal human condition (not
everyone knows everything, nor should they expect
to).

Why
anyone would think they have to understand every
jot and tittle
of what the pope says is beyond me. Major issues: yes, that is normal
to want to understand, but everything?
And if we don't it's a personal and possibly an ecclesiological /
spiritual crisis? No! That ultimately gets to issues of whether we
have a simple faith and trust in God, Who guides His Church, or not.

That
was my attitude, “going in.” Now (before I go on to provide my
analysis), contrast that with the rabid attacks on the pope that have
occurred in relation to this homily.

A
radical Catholic reactionary blog called The
Eponymous Flower
(self-described as “polemical Catholic Royalist”) had a field day
with this, writing on 22 December 2013:

.
. . the Pope expressed hitherto completely new thoughts on the
attitude of Mary on Calvary this past Friday. Is Pope Francis forming
Marian theology? Mary not as co-redeemer, but as a rebel? . . . Maria
Accused God of Deceit? . . . upon which theological arguments does
Pope Francis base his pronouncing a very, let us say with the utmost
restraint, “impetuous” judgment of the Blessed All Holy Virgin
Mary? We sincerely have no idea. If they were really spoken or
thought by the Mother of God, they would be called blasphemous. But
the doubts and the questions that Pope Francis puts in Mary's mouth,
have no equivalent in Revelation, even less in the tradition of the
Church or in the Fathers.

The
same person also wrote in comments:

The
troubling part here is the appearance of the usual Modernist
technique of infiltrating doubt, discord and confusion about articles
of Faith where the “Church has been silent.” . . . Mistakes are
not the same thing as obvious doctrinal errors, or scandalous
comments made in public by a Pope. Surely, his public witness has not
only been unprecedented, but very worrying to those few who are still
Catholic.

With
“friends” like this in the Church, who needs enemies? The devil
must be laughing his fool head off.

Catholic
blogger Elliot Bougis, who has written some great stuff in the past,
has apparently lately been entranced by the same sort of worthless
radical Catholic reactionary rhetoric and polemics, and now deigns to
lecture the Holy Father and those doltish enough to actually extend
to him respect and the benefit of the doubt, as if all alike were
errant, snot-nosed children. He pontificated on his site,
FideCogitActio:
“Omnis per gratiam”:

The
central issue is simply that it is a deviation from Catholic
tradition to say that, in
the act of having such difficulties,
Our Lady would accuse, or even “semi-accuse,” God of deceit (or
betrayal). . . . I (and numerous other concerned Catholics) would not
be prone to such “swipes” (merely to borrow my critic’s term),
if Pope Francis did not take so many swipes at the faithful and the
Faith itself.

A larger issue is that
the pope’s gaffe on this point is not anything new. He has proven
himself to be a frequently unreliable expositor of the Faith. Too
many nuances fudged, too many half-truths valorized, too little
clarification in the face of too much confusion. While I am certainly
not saying that everything he says is wrong–quite to the contrary,
it is the ragged litany of sporadic malapapalisms which
detract from his otherwise conventional orthodoxy–, I am saying
that his consistent tendency to confuse and shock the faithful
renders him unreliable as a catechist.

. . . As it stands,
though, it only reinforces the pattern that we must admit:
Pope Francis is not a careful thinker and he is often extremely
incautious with his words. Any pastor who requires the help of
legions of defenders to show how his malapapalisms “mesh” with
the Faith, is simply a poor teacher, and it’s not mockery to call a
spade a spade. 1

John Vennari, writing for the radical Catholic
reactionary site Catholic Family News, makes similar grand,
quasi-conspiratorial claims:

Pope Francis is
certainly a newsmaker, as he continually utters confusing statements
that leave Catholics reeling the world over. The above statement
about Our Lady is certainly one of the most troublesome.

Pope
Francis, by claiming Our Lady was probably surprised and confused by
the drama of the Crucifixion, actually promotes a Protestant reading
of the Blessed Mother that emphasizes her “humanity” over the
unique exalted gifts she received as Mother of God. Whether he
realized it or not, Pope Francis’ statements are actually a
denigration of Our Lady, and the first who would say so is Saint
Alphonsus Ligouri.2

Ironically
(and, I think, quite humorously), while Vennari (like Bougis) accuses
the Holy Father of forsaking genuine Catholic Mariological tradition,
he differs with Bougis on whether Blessed Pope John Paul II (in his
“New Way of the Cross” from 2001: to be cited below) is likewise
guilty, and states: “Saddest
of all, Pope Francis hearkens back to Pope John Paul II as the basis
of his meditation. In this Francis is accurate.”

Bougis, on the
other hand, classes John Paul the Great with “the good [orthodox]
guys”:

The
subtle but crucial difference between what Pope Francis insinuates
and what John Paul II teaches, sheds further light on why countless
healthy Catholic souls have reacted so negatively to Pope Francis’s
latest bungling of the Tradition. . . . This is subtly but crucially
different from what Pope Francis has, wittingly or not, foisted upon
us as children of the Mystical Rose. John Paul II’s orthodoxy
becomes even clearer when read in connection with his more formal
statements in Redemptoris
Mater
§18:

To
top it off, the article from The
Eponymous Flower,
cited above, stakes out a third position; namely, that Pope John Paul
II was correct in his Mariology, but (differing from both Bougis and
Vennari) that Pope Francis was inaccurately (or wrongheadedly)
drawing from a completely different
document (!):

The
daring interpretation that Pope Francis gives to Mary's silence,
gives rise spontaneously to two questions. The first question
that imposes itself is: In what document or speech is Pope John
Paul II to have put such words of the Virgin Mother of God in
her mouth?

Some
searching and consultation of a colleague proved
successful. The passage refers to the Encyclical Redemptoris
Mater .
. .

Thus
we observe the comedic spectacle of three writers trashing the Holy
Father, yet contradicting each other, as to the relation of the
supposed dreadful comments to the teaching of Blessed [soon to be
Saint] Pope John Paul II (and from which document of his). It rather
reminds one of the witnesses against Christ contradicting each other
(Mark 14:56). But it does provide much-needed entertainment in an
otherwise dreary, boorish affair (where one has to “laugh to keep
from crying”).

Now,
let's move on to examine some biblical analogies and relevant
passages, look at a few examples of the same sort of notions in
previous Catholic Mariology, and finally, to consult in some depth,
many other Marian utterances of Pope Francis. I submit that this will
allow a very different picture to emerge.

The
first thing to note is that Mary didn't have comprehensive knowledge
of all the particulars of Jesus' ministry and mission. The most
well-known example was when Jesus was teaching in the temple at age
twelve:

Luke
2:48-50
And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to
him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I
have been looking for you anxiously.” [49] And he said to them,
“How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in
my Father's house?” [50] And they did not understand the saying
which he spoke to them.

This
conclusively shows that she didn't have exhaustive knowledge. She
didn't even understand after
Jesus explained. It doesn't follow that she didn't know that He was
God incarnate ad the Messiah; only that she didn't know everything
there was to know about Him: all particulars and fine points.

The
next thing to determine is whether Mary could be tempted (even
fleetingly) with untrue thoughts or despairing emotions. Yes, of
course! God Himself can be tempted; that is, the devil and men can
attempt to do so. They will be – can only
be – unsuccessful, but they can try:

Sirach
18:23Before making a vow, prepare
yourself; and do not be like a man who tempts
the Lord.

Acts 5:9 But
Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to
tempt the Spirit of the
Lord? . . .” [the Holy Spirit is God; cf. 5:3-4]

Hebrews 4:15 For
we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our
weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are,
yet without sin.

Jesus was, of course, tempted by the devil for 40
days in the wilderness:

Luke 4:1-2, 12-13
And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was
led by the Spirit [2] for forty
days in the wilderness, tempted by the devil. . . . [12] And Jesus
answered him, “It is said, 'You shall not tempt the Lord your
God.'” [13] And when the devil had ended every temptation,
he departed from him until an opportune time.

Therefore, since God Himself can be tempted
(unsuccessfully), so can Mary, who is His creature, as the lesser of
the two (and also unsuccessfully, but the devil can try). A
sudden temptation entering Mary's mind, as a human being, watching
her Son being tortured to death on the cross, is both quite
understandable and contrary to nothing in Catholic theology.
She could be tempted, just as Jesus was, but did she give in
to it?, is the question. The pope reiterated here and elsewhere that
she did not do so.

But the thought is altogether possible,
especially when we note what the Italian voglia means. If my
friend was correct, it is a “fleeting thought” or mere “pang”
or “twinge”; “an unbidden, sudden, spontaneous thought or
temptation.” This was what the pope was saying. It may have
/ could possibly have / understandably would have (mere
speculation) entered her head. If so, she didn't act upon it, and it
didn't annihilate her steadfast faith.

The next related thing is to ponder analogies to
her Divine Son. Could He: 1) tremendously suffer; all the while not
ever wavering in resolve, and 2) feel forsaken or profoundly
separated from His Father, in His human nature even though He never
was separated from Him for even an instant in His Divine Nature? Yes,
on both counts. Again, then, the analogical reasoning is: “as the
greater [God] is, so the lesser [creature] plausibly is
all the more so.”

The most obvious example of this is Jesus' words
from the cross: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken
me?” (Matthew 27:46). The Church father, St. Hilary of Poitiers
attributed this to “weakness” in Jesus human nature:

Christ, who had
depended in all things upon His Father’s support, now deserted and
left to death, mourns over this desertion, and pleads with Him
departing. . . . The complaint of His being deserted is the weakness
of the dying man; the promise of Paradise is the kingdom of the
living God. You have Him complaining that He is left to death, and
thus He is Man; you have Him as He is dying declaring that He reigns
in Paradise; and thus He is God. Wonder not then at the humility of
these words, when you know the form of a servant, and see the offence
of the cross.3

The great Jesuit commentator and exegete,
Cornelius a Lapide (1567-1637), adds:

Christ therefore does
not cry out as being forsaken by the Godhead and hypostatic union of
the Word, nor even by the grace and love of God, but only because the
Father did not rescue Him from instant death, nor soothe in any way
His cruel sufferings, but permitted Him to endure unmitigated
tortures. And all this was to show how bitter was His death on the
Cross, the rending asunder of His soul and body with such intense
pain as to lead Him to pray in His agony and bloody sweat, “Father,
if it be possible,” &c. So St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom,
Theophylact, and other Fathers; nor do & Hilary and St. Ambrose
mean anything else in saying, “The man cried aloud when dying at
being separated from the Godhead.” For they mean not a severing of
essence and of the hypostatical union, but of support and
consolation. For the faith teaches us that though the soul of Christ
was separated from His body, yet the Godhead remained as before,
hypostatically united both to His soul and His body.4

The agony of our Lord Jesus in the Garden of
Gethsemane is another similar instance of this intense suffering:

Matthew 26:36-44
Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsem'ane, and he said
to his disciples, “Sit here, while I go yonder and pray.” [37]
And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zeb'edee, he began to
be sorrowful and troubled. [38] Then he said to them, “My soul is
very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me.”
[39] And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, “My
Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless,
not as I will, but as thou wilt.” [40] And he came to the disciples
and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, “So, could you not
watch with me one hour? [41] Watch and pray that you may not enter
into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is
weak.” [42] Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed,
“My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, thy will be
done.” [43] And again he came and found them sleeping, for their
eyes were heavy. [44] So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed
for the third time, saying the same words.

So Jesus could pray, not once, but three
times, that if it were possible, He could avoid the cross, yet we
are to believe that Mary, a mere creature, cannot even for a fleeting
instant while watching her Son die an excruciatingly painful
death on the cross have any thought or temptation whatsoever that
this seemed to be contrary to the glorious “messianic kingdom”
proclamations by the angel at the Annunciation? She's not supposed to
feel anything: any agony: even without accompanying doubt or
sin? That makes no sense.

If that is impossible or unthinkable for her
to do, certainly these analogous “agonizing” thoughts from Jesus
would not have occurred, either. But they did; thus we
conclude by analogy that Mary may have had similar thoughts. In
Jesus, there was the striking contrast between His being God (Who
cannot suffer), and man (who can and does suffer). In Mary (if indeed
she thought this), the contrast was between the triumphant messianic
kingdom and the “suffering servant” Messiah of Isaiah 53.

Lapide writes in his commentary on Matthew 26:37:

The primary cause of
His sorrow was not the flight of His Apostles, which He foresaw, but
the vivid apprehension of His approaching Passion and death, as is
plain from His prayer, “Let this cup pass from Me.” For Christ
foresaw all the torments, one by one, which the Jews would inflict on
Him, and fully entered into and weighed the magnitude and bitterness
of His several sorrows, so as to seem to be already suffering them,
even to the shedding of His blood. For Christ doubtless wished to
atone by His sorrow for the pleasure which Adam had in eating the
forbidden fruit, and which sinners now experience in their sins. . .
. the sorrows of the Son pierced, as a sword, the soul of the mother,
and from her were reflected on Christ. For His greatest sorrow was
that His mother suffered so grievously on His account.

St. Augustine exegeted Matthew 26:39 as follows:

Christ thus as man
shows a certain private human will, in which He who is our head
figures both His own will and ours when He says, “Let it pass from
me.” For this was His human will choosing something as apart for
Himself. But because as man He would be righteous and guide Himself
by God’s will, He adds, “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou
wilt;” as much as to say to us, Man, behold thyself in Me, that
thou canst will somewhat apart of thyself, and though God’s will is
other, this is permitted to human frailty.5

On the same passage, Lapide comments (note the
close analogy to Pope Francis' speculation about Mary):

My Father, if it be
possible, let this cup pass from Me. Absolutely this was possible,
but it was impossible according to God’s decree that man was to be
redeemed by Christ’s death. Christ knew this, and therefore did not
wish for it absolutely, and asks for nothing contrary to His own and
the Father’s will. But He merely expresses His natural shrinking
from death, His ineffectual and conditionated [sic] will, and yet
freely submitted Himself to the contrary will of God, that He should
die.

. . . the natural will
of Christ was conditional and of no avail, because it wished to
escape death only under the condition that it pleased God. But His
rational will was absolute and effectual, because He embraced death
for the same reason that God willed it, that is, for man’s
redemption. But the natural will of Christ seemed materially contrary
to the Divine will. But by the rule of subordination it was
conformable to it, as suffering itself to be guided by the rational
will, and thus by the Divine will; and, on the other hand, the will
of God, as well as the rational will of Christ, wishes on deliberate
and just ground that His natural will should express this natural
fear of death. In both aspects, therefore, was the will of Christ in
all respects conformable to the Divine.

Jesus
showed very human emotion at other times, as well, such as weeping
over Lazarus' death, even though He was to raise him shortly
afterward:

John
11:32-35, 38Then Mary, when she came where Jesus was
and saw him, fell at his feet, saying to him, “Lord, if you had
been here, my brother would not have died.”
[33] When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also
weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled; [34] and he
said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to him, “Lord, come
and see.” [35] Jesus wept. . . . [38] Then Jesus, deeply
moved again, . . .

The following lamentation from Jesus was
obviously quite emotional:

Matthew 23:37 O
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are
sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together
as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

Another instance of human discomfort with a
simultaneous full resolve to follow God's will wherever it leads, is
St. Paul's thorn in the flesh:

2 Corinthians
12:7-10 And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of
revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan,
to harass me, to keep me from being too elated.
[8] Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave
me; [9] but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my
power is made perfect in weakness.” I will all the more gladly
boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
[10] For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with
weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for
when I am weak, then I am strong.

The anguished cry and feeling of “how long?”
has a longstanding history from the Old Testament: at least as far
back as King David. Mary could have been thinking of the messianic
expectation (which was highlighted at the Annunciation (see Lk
1:31-33), crushed (in a sense) at the prospect of Jesus having to die
a horrible death without the kingdom coming in physical terms, with
judgment of sinners:

Psalm
6:2-7 Be gracious to me, O LORD, for I am languishing;O LORD,
heal me, for my bones are troubled.[3]
My soul also is sorely troubled.But thou, O LORD -- how long?[4]
Turn, O LORD, save my life;deliver me for the sake of thy
steadfast love.[5] For in death there is no remembrance of
thee;in Sheol who can give thee praise?[6] I am weary with my
moaning;every night I flood my bed with tears;I drench my
couch with my weeping.[7] My eye wastes away because of
grief,it grows weak because of all my foes. (cf. 13:1-2; 35:17)

Psalm
74:10 How long, O God, is the foe to scoff?Is the enemy to
revile thy name for ever? (cf. 90:13; 94:3; 119:84; Hab 1:2)

Lamentations
5:20-22 Why dost thou forget us for ever, why dost thou so long
forsake us? [21] Restore us to
thyself, O LORD, that we may be restored! Renew our days as of old!
[22] Or hast thou utterly rejected us?Art thou exceedingly angry
with us?

Such prayers are even made by the
angel of the Lord (Zech 1:12), and redeemed souls in heaven (Rev
6:10).

As the pope noted, Mary was a human
being! Is she not allowed even a micro-second of agony and sadness
and sorrow?
Does not human emotion have a “logic” of its own, that often runs
contrary to what our minds and wills would “say”? Is it not
possible for her to be tempted, just as Jesus was? Do we believe that
she was so “super-human” that she could never have any
“depression” at all about anything: up to and including the cruel
death of her Son on the cross?

Is
she absolutely different from the prophet Elijah? He had just
triumphantly confronted the false prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel (1
Kings 18). But in the very next chapter, we see him struggling
mightily, as a weak human being. He's described as “afraid”
(19:3), wanting to “die” (19:4), worrying about being killed
(19:14). He agonized with doubt; Mary and Christ did so without the
doubt that would suggest lack of faith or sin.

Now,
contrary to “assured” and loudmouthed proclamations that the pope
expressed something completely new, novel, and heterodox, we see
almost the same notion in Blessed Pope John Paul II's New
Way of the Cross / Via Crucis 2000;
fourth station:

“Do
not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. And behold,
you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his
name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most
High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father
David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and his
kingdom will have no end” (Lk 1:30-33).

Mary
remembered these words. She often returned to them in the secret of
her heart. When she met her Son on the way of the Cross, perhaps
these very words came to her mind. With particular force. “He will
reign . . . His kingdom will have no end”, the heavenly messenger
had said.

Now,
as she watches her Son, condemned to death, carrying the Cross on
which he must die, she might ask herself, all too humanly: So how can
these words be fulfilled? In what way will he reign over the House of
David? And how can it be that his kingdom will have no end?

Humanly
speaking, these are reasonable questions.

But
Mary remembered that, when she first heard the Angel’s message, she
had replied: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done
to me according to your word” (Lk 1:38).

Now
she sees that her word is being fulfilled as the word of the Cross.
Because she is a mother, Mary suffers deeply. But she answers now as
she had answered then, at the Annunciation: “May it be done to me
according to your word”.

In
this way, as a mother would, she embraces the cross together with the
divine Condemned One.

On
the way of the Cross Mary shows herself to be the Mother of the
Redeemer of the world.

“All
you who pass by the way, look and see whether there is any suffering
like my suffering, which has been dealt me” (Lam 1:12).

It
is the Sorrowful Mother who speaks, the Handmaid who is obedient to
the last, the Mother of the Redeemer of the world.

PRAYER

O
Mary, who walked the way of the Cross with your Son, your mother’s
heart torn by grief, but mindful always of your fiat and fully
confident that He to whom nothing is impossible would be able to
fulfil his promises, implore for us and for the generations yet to
come the grace of surrender to God’s love.6

It's
all there. There is nothing here that isn't present in Pope Francis'
thoughts. Here is the controversial section of his homily again:

She
was silent, but in her heart, how many things told the Lord! ‘You,
that day, this and the other that we read, you had told me that he
would be great, you had told me that you would have given him the
throne of David, his forefather, that he would have reigned forever
and now I see him there!’ Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even
had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’ John Paul II would
say this, speaking about Our Lady in that moment.

And
now a point-by-point comparison:

Blessed Pope John Paul II referred to Mary
pondering the “messianic kingdom” words of the Annunciation, at
the cross. So did Pope Francis. Both cited the words or content of
the angel's message at the Annunciation. John Paul II uses the words
“all too humanly,” and “humanly speaking.” Pope Francis
declares, “Our
Lady was human!”

Blessed
Pope John Paul II “wonders out loud”:

.
. . she might ask herself, all too humanly: So how can these words be
fulfilled? In what way will he reign over the House of David? And how
can it be that his kingdom will have no end?

Pope
Francis merely puts John Paul II's words, “how can,” “In what
way,” “how can it be” in more graphic, human, hyper-emotional
terms, of the sort that the devil might momentarily put into a mind,
even the mind of a holy, sinless person like the Blessed Virgin Mary
(which she then instantly rejects upon reflection):

And
perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’

Both
popes portray Mary as overcoming these highly emotional thoughts with
a profound, unwavering faith. Francis references the earlier
reflections of his papal predecessor and right after that, concludes,
similarly: “But she, with her silence, hid the mystery that she did
not understand and with this silence allowed for this mystery to grow
and blossom in hope.” It ends in hope and trust and faith, not
despair and “blasphemy.”

She
(possibly) had a fleeting thought and temptation. It didn't succeed
in rocking or displacing her solid faith. The pope's detractors think
they have proven something by emphasizing the one pungent phrase,
minus context, and any comparative analysis of the pope's overall
teaching on Mary (which is what I'll do next), or much thought at all
of the scriptural backdrop.

An
elementary rule in interpreting anything is to do it within the
overall body of a person's thought. In biblical exegesis and
systematic theology, one finds massive cross-referencing, and also
the time-honored notion that more obscure biblical passages are to be
interpreted by clearer ones along the same lines. As far as I can
tell, the pope's scathing critics in this regard have not done that
at all, whereas I have pored over as many of his utterances elsewhere
about Mary as I could find. Do these clarify his thinking? They
sure do, and quite dramatically and definitively so.

In
an hour or so of searching online, I found a goldmine of Marian
teaching from Pope Francis. One was from less than a month before the
homily in question, on exactly the same subject matter (thus allowing
us to have more insight about what he meant):

Our Lady looks at her
Son’s mission with exultation but also with apprehension, because
Jesus becomes increasingly the sign of contradiction that the elderly
Simeon had pre-announced to her. At the foot of the cross, she is the
woman of sorrow and at the same time of vigilant waiting of a
mystery, greater than the sorrow, which is about to take
place. Everything seems truly finished; every hope it could be said
was spent. At
that moment, recalling the promises of the Annunciation, she also
could have said: they have not come true, I was deceived. But she did
not say it.
Yet she, blessed because she believed, sees blossom
from her faith the new future and waits with hope for God’s
tomorrow.7

Note that in this form, her momentary temptation
or doubt reads more in terms of her possibly having been mistaken.
It's an emotion we're all familiar with: we're disappointed, crushed,
highly upset about something, and we conclude that we have
been wrong about something, where previously we felt quite certain.
This goes back to Mary not having all particular knowledge of God's
salvation plan.

To say, “I was deceived” is vastly
different from saying, “God deceived me.” But that was the
same language Pope Francis used in the later homily, so the same
reasoning would apply there as well. It's not necessarily blaming
God; blaspheming by thinking He is a “liar.” But that is how many
have interpreted it, with a complete lack of charity as well as
reason.

Instead of the highly charged word, “lies” we
have the milder “they have not come true.” Both of these choices
of words lead us to interpret the later utterance much less
“radically” than the rabid critics and self-important “orthodoxy
cops” do.

The earlier statement has “could have
said” followed quickly by the denial: “did
not
say
it.” The later homily also ends in hope and affirmation: “she,
with her silence, hid the mystery that she did not understand and
with this silence allowed for this mystery to grow and blossom in
hope.” The ending of the earlier meditation (immediately after the
citation above) is all about a bright, sunny hope (Mary's hope in
that dark hour is something that she also comforts us
with, as the exemplar of hope and faith):

Sometimes I wonder: are
we able to wait for God’s tomorrow? Or do we want it today? For her
God’s tomorrow is the dawn of the Easter morning, of that first day
of the week. It would do us good to contemplate the Son’s embrace
with the Mother. The only lighted lamp at the entrance of Jesus’
sepulcher is his Mother’s hope, which at that moment is the hope of
the whole of humanity. I ask myself and you: is this lamp still
alight in convents? Is God’s tomorrow still awaited in convents?

We
owe much to this Mother! In her, present in every moment of the
history of salvation, we see a solid witness of hope. She, Mother of
hope, supports us in moments of darkness, of difficulty, of distress,
of apparent defeat or of real human defeats. May Mary, our hope, help
us to make of our life a pleasing offering to the Heavenly Father,
and a joyful gift for our brothers, an attitude that always looks to
tomorrow.8

Another
hostile assumption employed by the papal detractors is an insinuation
that, somehow, Pope Francis has denied the traditional doctrine of
Mary as Co-Redemptrix,
or (the more common term) Mediatrix.
It seems to be thought that he has a low or undeveloped or heretical
Mariology, when in fact, he holds to this tenet, which is disputed
(wrongly) even among some orthodox Catholics.

If
in fact, he agrees
that Mary participated in the redemption by offering her Son, by her
consent, this is hardly commensurate with some silly idea that she
was doubting the whole time. He does
agree. Here is the proof:

Mary is model of union
with Christ. The life of the Holy Virgin was the life of a woman of
her people: she prayed, worked, went to the synagogue … However,
every action was always carried out in perfect union with Jesus. This
union reached its climax on Calvary: here Mary unites herself to her
Son in the martyrdom of the heart and in the offering of life to the
Father for the salvation of humanity. Our Lady made her own the pain
of her Son and with Him accepted the Father’s will, in
that obedience that bears fruit, which gives the true victory over
evil and death.

This reality that Mary
teaches us is very beautiful: to be always united to Jesus. We can
ask ourselves: do we remember Jesus only when something is not going
well or when we are in need, or is our relationship constant, a
profound friendship, also when it is a question of following him on
the way of the cross?9

The
rest of the same teaching, before and after the above citation,
follows:

How
did Mary live this faith? In the simplicity of the thousands of daily
occupations and preoccupations of every mother, such as providing
food, clothes, the care of the home … In fact this normal existence
of Our Lady was the terrain where a singular relationship took place
and a profound dialogue between her and God, between her and her Son.
Mary’s “yes,” already perfect at the beginning, grew up to the
hour of the Cross. There her maternity was dilated embracing each one
of us, our life, to lead us to her Son. Mary always lived immersed in
the mystery of God made man, as his first and perfect disciple,
meditating everything in her heart in the light of the Holy Spirit,
to understand and put into practice the whole will of God. . . .

Let
us ask the Lord to give us the gift of his grace, his strength, so
that in our life and in the life of every ecclesial community the
model is reflected of Mary, Mother of the Church. So be it!

Pope Francis teaches that Mary said “yes” at
the cross as well as at the Annunciation:

Mary said her yes to
God: a yes which upset her simple life in Nazareth, and not only
once. Any number of times she had to utter a heartfelt yes at moments
of joy and sorrow, culminating in the yes she spoke at the foot of
the Cross. Here today there are many mothers present; think of the
full extent of Mary's faithfulness to God: seeing her only Son on the
cross. . . . 10

The Church and
Pope Francis also hold that Mary's faith was a “journey”; it
wasn't whole and entire from the beginning of her calling:

The third aspect is
Mary’s faith as a journey. The Council says that Mary
“advanced in her pilgrimage of faith” (Lumen Gentium,
58). In this way she precedes us on this pilgrimage, she
accompanies and sustains us.

How was Mary’s faith
a journey? In the sense that her entire life was to follow her Son:
he – Jesus – is the way, he is the path! To press forward in
faith, to advance in the spiritual pilgrimage which is faith, is
nothing other than to follow Jesus; . . . The way of Jesus is the way
of a love which is faithful to the end, even unto sacrificing one’s
life; it is the way of the cross. The journey of faith thus passes
through the cross. Mary understood this from the beginning, when
Herod sought to kill the newborn Jesus. But then this experience of
the cross became deeper when Jesus was rejected. Mary was always with
Jesus, she followed Jesus in the midst of the crowds and she heard
all the gossip and the nastiness of those who opposed the Lord. And
she carried this cross! Mary’s faith encountered misunderstanding
and contempt. When Jesus’ “hour” came, the hour of his passion,
. . . Mary’s faith was a little flame burning in the night, a
little light flickering in the darkness. Through the night of Holy
Saturday, Mary kept watch. Her flame, small but bright, remained
burning until the dawn of the resurrection. And when she received
word that the tomb was empty, her heart was filled with the joy of
faith: Christian faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Faith always brings us to joy, and Mary is the Mother of joy! . . .
What is our faith like? Like Mary, do we keep it burning even at
times of difficulty, in moments of darkness? Do I feel the joy of
faith? This evening, Mother, we thank you for our faith, the faith of
a strong and humble woman; we renew our entrustment to you, Mother of
our faith. Amen.11

Moreover, the Holy Father teaches that Mary never
lost hope during Christ's passion:

Hope – he said – is
what Mary, Mother of God, sheltered in her heart during the darkest
time of her life: from Friday afternoon until Sunday morning. That is
hope: she had it. And that hope has renewed everything.12

Her
faith never wavered, even at the time of her darkest, most painful
trial:

.
. . Standing at the foot of the cross with unyielding faith, you
received the joyful comfort of the resurrection, and joined the
disciples in awaiting the Spirit so that the evangelizing Church
might be born.13

Nor
did her strength falter at the cross:

She
bore in her heart, throughout the pilgrimage of her life, the words
of the elderly Simeon who foretold that a sword would pierce her
soul, and with persevering strength she stood at the foot of the
cross of Jesus. She knows the way, and for this reason she is the
Mother of all of the sick and suffering. To her we can turn with
confidence and filial devotion, certain that she will help us,
support us and not abandon us. She is the Mother of the crucified and
risen Christ: she stands beside our crosses and she accompanies us on
the journey towards the resurrection and the fullness of life.14

8 comments:

This is a well thought-out response and genuine reply that not only shows a great deal of work and effort, but a great deal of patience, charity and grace. Bravo!

It saddens me to see how some among the "traditionalists" seem so focused on "every jot and ditle" that they fail to see the beauty of what is really there. Many have become Pope Nazis; scrutinizing every word, pause, breath, smile, smirk, body gesture, etc., that the Pope makes. I even know some whom I've dubbed "Eucharist Nazis" because they seem to always know when I have or have not received the Eucharist and thus inquire as to "why did you not receive today?"

I was actually brought back to Catholicism thanks to the efforts of a "traditional" family, but I have found myself sickened by the constant Pope-bashing, self-promoted canon lawyers, self-ordained theologians, holier-than-though and the ever present and oft promoted - "I'm a Traditionalist, therefore, I'm a better Catholic than you" - attitude. It's as if Catholicism has become a "rules based Faith' instead of one based on Faith, Hope and Charity.

I've even had the experience of witnessing certain individuals within our parish, who while attending the Old Latin Mass, approach and rebuke the Priest afterwards for; "not having his fingers properly positioned while holding and elevating the Eucharist"...sigh.

What perhaps is so revolting about all of this is the way these individuals take pride in themselves for making it a public spectacle by bringing it to everyone's attention, then grin and smile from ear-to-ear in pleasure of catching a "heretic in action". It's insanity.

But what I find more puzzling is their cries and calls for a return of the Great Saints, those that were not afraid to defend and preach the Catholic doctrine, all the while, facing great odds and angry foes. Instead, they create websites and blogs where they can hide behind pseudonyms, or use an alternate name, then go about lambasting and condemning everything it is "they" see wrong. Where is the evangelization in that? Where is the charity of researching what is actually taught versus expressing a personal opinion? If this is their idea of a "return to the Great Saints", then it is a poor effort indeed.

Thank God there are traditionalists who do not act in this manner and have even expressed the same concerns as I. But it is the type of behavior I mentioned above, that continues to create a rift within the Church, and much like the Pharisees, it is pride that blinds these individuals. It was because of my constant exposure to this type of behavior, that I felt compelled to leave the traditionalist "movement" and embrace Catholicism for what it truly is and not what certain "traditionalists" say it is.

God Bless you and your family Mr. Armstrong! May Our Lady watch over you.

I think there are mainstream, legitimate "traditionalists" (the majority) and a separate extreme, fringe group that I have coined "radical Catholic reactionaries": who act in the way you describe. It's helpful to distinguish between the two, because if we don't, the accusation is made that we are opposing everyone who prefers the Old Mass.

That's fine. It's all this other garbage that is objectionable: the Pharisaism, the "more Catholic than the pope" mentality . . .

With that "disclaimer" I agree with what you say. It's just a mater of how we refer to the phenomenon.

Is there a conflict between truth and loyalty? Yes, in ideologies, but not in Catholicism: Catholic loyalty is something deeper, more balanced, and more honest that the ideological form.

It simply is not the truth that this Pope's communication approach is perfect: he is causing some real problems as evidenced by all the efforts expended to explain why he is not a heretic or some such thing. This is time that could have been spent in evangelization.

He needs to be clearer, more consistent, or at least say less off the cuff. Since we are talking about communication, any of us are permitted to notice this.

I agree that there is a conflict between loyalty and truth, that is not the argument here. The argument is exactly what your last paragraph mentions: "communication". No one here is stating that his "communication approach is perfect".

Communication goes BOTH ways. It is not just hearing, but also listening, understanding and verifying what has been spoken is true. Mr. Armstrong did a marvelous job, if not outstanding, of providing Biblical resources as well as several theological resources that support what Francis said. How many lay Catholics would be able to pull such quotes off the top of their heads? It's as if certain radical Catholic reactionaries deem themselves as "all knowing" and have somehow absorbed every written document produced by Popes, Theologians, and Saints of the past, yet somehow struggle to find documentation that just might support what the current Pope is saying.

I find it uncharitable when it becomes an "attack and condemn first; argue second" approach versus a "questioning first, then research and verify" approach. The later seems to be lacking among certain radical Catholics.

" This is time that could have been spent in evangelization." I couldn't agree more, Mr. Spencer, that is precisely why Pope Francis made this issue a Homily, which leads me to ask several questions: 1) Why do certain radical Catholic reactionaries refuse to show charity in attempting to verify what the Pope has said as not being "heretical" before making such bold proclamations? 2) How many anti-Catholics out there would be salivating over this "alleged heresy" in which to attack Our Faith and Church but yet go unopposed in their attacks if someone like Armstrong didn't help clarify the issue?"

Human nature being what it is, often does not want to put forth the effort to validate or research a truth or a teaching, we would much rather be told, as it is easier. We live in an age of instant communication where everything we say can be recorded and posted and "yes' even edited and deleted before the rest of the world sees and hears it. If the type of communication we have today existed a thousand years ago, I wonder how many times a Pope or Saint would have been called a heretic if he/she was caught speaking "off cuff"? Or perhaps in the privacy of their prayers? Even Saint Peter denied Our Lord, yet we seem to hold so much greater scrutiny over our current Popes.

"He needs to be clearer, more consistent,." Can you provide me a Papal Bull or Encyclical that has not be argued over its meaning, whose context has not been twisted and distorted to mean "something else", or used by protestants to attack Catholic doctrine and teachings? Mr. Armstrong says it best; "Why should we expect that we would instantly understand everything a pope says anyway?"

Looks like you don't understand the definition regarding the Doctrine of Infallibility. It's already been proven what Pope Francis has said is not out of context. You, yourself are proving to be the prime example of what this whole discussion was about; the inability to truly communicate.

Oh before I forget, I would like to respond to a previous post of yours which I received, where you were so kind as to "cut and paste" only a portion of what I had said.

Your response and statement to: ""Communication goes BOTH ways. It is not just hearing, but also listening..." - And this lets Francis off the hook, right? Palease. He says things purposefully intended to be taken in a heretical sense like that "everyone is redeemed, even atheists." He knew how people would take that. Yes, you can analyze it for weeks and try very hard to construct an orthodox sense to force into it. But you shouldn't have to."

You just proved the point of the whole argument. I noticed you copied and pasted a portion of my statement but failed to post the entire sentence, where I defined what "communication" was about. Funny thing you left out "understanding and verifying what has been spoken is true."

"And this lets Francis off the hook, right? Palease." Who said and alleges Pope Francis is on "a hook"?, as it appears only certain radicals and anti-Catholics seem to be placing Pope Francis on "the hook'. Are you making the accusation of Pope Francis being a "heretic"? If so, then by what authority have you to make such an accusation?

"He says things purposefully intended to be taken in a heretical sense like that "everyone is redeemed, even atheists." He knew how people would take that." Willful intent is pretty hard to prove here David, I wasn't aware that you had the ability to read minds. But it appears from your statement that you are drinking the modernist media koolaid, as well as failing to research what was really said. "Cut and paste, then critixcize" wash, rinse, repeat. You can read more about it here http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2013/05/did-pope-francis-preach-salvation-by-works.html and here http://www.catholicvote.org/what-pope-francis-really-said-about-atheists/ and of course here http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-pope-francis-say-atheists-dont-need-to-believe-in-god-to-be-saved-9-thi

"Yes, you can analyze it for weeks and try very hard to construct an orthodox sense to force into it. But you shouldn't have to." Oh yeah! That's right! I forgot. Our Lord and Savior never once spoke intentionally in riddles and parables now, did He? I guess we'll have to forget all those Ecumenical Councils of old, since they pretty much did what you claim Pope Francis is doing. And the Doctrine of The Immaculate Conception: that has of course, been completely understood and accepted by all Catholics now hasn't it?

I'll play your game of devil's advocate here and I'll just assume and pretend that perhaps what you and "others" claim regarding Pope Francis is true, that he "sinned with heresy". But then again, that is what makes the Catholic Church so beautiful isn't it? That we are ALL sinners and a family of sinners. Which leads me to one of the most beautiful Sacraments of our Faith, the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation. I guess then, Pope Francis might just be "off the hook" afterall.

LOL! Now you don't understand Calvinism. You're really good at putting words in a person's mouth. I never said "so nothing matters", but then again, I guess that is to be expected from someone who isn't listening. Nor was I ever implying that the Pope simply goes to Confession and all is well. And how would YOU know if his Penance was false? How do you know he didn't make a mistake? Are you a Priest? Maybe a Canon lawyer? Oh yeah, I forgot, you read minds.

Sorry, I'm no Calvinist, nor Jansenist. You have only made me out to be that way by your adding additional words to my previous statements. I'll forgive you.

I sent you three different links in one of my previous comments that helps to clarify this issue regarding "even atheists are saved" and judging by the way you came out "swinging your axe" I would say that you either didn't see them, or you never even bothered in good charity to read them, much less peruse them. The only thing I can see is that you are full of hatred and anger in your "dialogues" and it seems like you have an "axe to grind" for no other reason than to be slanderous. Since you seem unwilling to review the content of those links, perhaps it demonstrates that even you believe everything the mainstream Modernist media has to publish regrading the Pope. Even now its being revealed how much was edited "purposefully" out of context. Oh but of course, the media would never attack the Pope. Seems like you learned well from them as you have extended the same type of charity towards me.

I wasn't aware that the CCC had a rule in there where we were to make it known that our Confessions, much less the Popes, were to be posted publicly for all to scrutinize. Perhaps you can point that out for me? Even Pope John Paul II went to Confession frequently, by the way. Yes, a Pope speaking with greater clarity would be ideal for those of us who are limited in our mental capacities and understandings of Catholic Doctrines, such as myself. But it seems like when such episodes take place, too many go on the attack BEFORE verifying what REALLY was said and what wasn't.

You know, even at the Council of Nicaea there were a large number of bishops present who were "arian" in their understandings and beliefs. If I recall correctly, that issue got cleared up after about two months and even those bishops had to do penance. You make statements as if you had first hand, personal knowledge that the Pope spoke intentionally and with purposeful deceit. So much for "Thou shalt not bare false witness against thy neighbor."

David, it is nice to see that you love Catholicism but you sure show a strange way of practicing it towards others. "..and the greatest of these is Charity.." I can understand, respect, and appreciate your zeal. I've been there. But what I can't understand is your approach and method. You have already alleged the Pope as having 'purposeful intent' as if you have personal knowledge of such. That, David, is a very fine line between a lie and accusation.

Thank you for the post of Evangelii Gaudium. But you seem to have left out four other paragraphs before 254 of Evanelii Gaudium, paragraphs that develop the entire context of what Pope Francis is saying in 254. If I were to read 254 all by itself, then "sure' I might very well come to the same conclusions as you.

But I notice that 250-253 build the context and contain the subject, that being a "dialogue with Non-Christians". Now I see that in the second sentence of 254, Pope Francis not only ATTACKS atheism but even clarifies that the Sacraments ARE NECESSARY. What's wrong with that?!!

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

I am reading your stuff since I think it is the most thorough and perhaps the best defense of Catholicism out there . . . Dave has been nothing but respectful and kind to me. He has shown me great respect despite knowing full well that I disagree with him on the essential issues.

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.--- Karl Keating (founder and director of Catholic Answers, the largest Catholic apologetics organization in the world; 5 Sep. 2013 and 1 Jan. 2015)

Whether one agrees with Dave's take on everything or not, everyone should take it quite seriously, because he presents his arguments formidably.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).